← All News
Our Petition for a Rehearing of the NY-Sun Program Order
By Jason Kaplan
The NY-Sun Program, administered by NYSERDA, has long been a cornerstone for solar adoption across New York State, helping families, businesses, and frontline communities access clean, affordable energy.
New York is already a national leader in solar, having met its 6 GW distributed solar goal ahead of schedule in 2024. We’re on track for 10 GW by 2030, but only if we continue investing in solutions that work.
Recently, however, the Public Service Commission (PSC) announced major changes to the NY-Sun Program that include eliminating future funding. In light of the Public Service Commission’s recent decision, a move that jeopardizes years of clean energy progress, we petition for a rehearing to ensure New York’s solar leadership continues to thrive.
We outline the following main issues that warrant rehearing in order for these errors to be rectified:
Dear New York Public Service Commission:
PowerMarket hereby submits comments in support of the Petition for Rehearing filed by the New York Solar Energy Industries Association (NYSEIA) regarding the Public Service Commission’s April 24, 2025 Order Approving NY-Sun Program Modifications (“Order”). PowerMarket is the leading community solar provider in the country, with over 1 GW of community solar under management, including over 115,000 subscribers, many of whom are low-and-moderate income households.
I urge the Commission to grant rehearing and reconsider the determination to allocate 100% of the remaining NY-Sun surplus funds solely to the Statewide Solar for All (S-SFA) program, which was neither recommended by any party nor supported by substantial evidence in the record. As discussed below, new circumstances and errors of fact justify rehearing under § 3.7(b).
We respectfully submit the comments below for your consideration.
NEW CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING A DIFFERENT DETERMINATION
First, new federal policy risks have materially changed the project finance landscape since NYSERDA’s January 2024 Post-10 GW Report — the primary evidence cited by the Commission for its funding allocation decision.
Specifically, H.R. “The One Big Beautiful Bill”, reported from the House Ways and Means Committee on May 12, 2025, proposes to reduce or eliminate the 30% Investment Tax Credit (ITC) that was central to NYSERDA’s economic modeling of the NY-Sun surplus. The Commission's Order itself acknowledges that the extension of the 30% ITC was the “most impactful element of the IRA” in producing the projected budget surplus.
Now, with the continuation of the 30% ITC in question, NYSERDA’s surplus estimates and project viability assumptions are no longer valid. Rehearing is required to ensure that surplus funds are prudently allocated under this new reality — particularly as community solar projects depend more heavily on state incentives when federal tax credit support is uncertain.
ERRORS OF FACT IN THE COMMISSION’S DETERMINATION
The Commission’s finding that 100% S-SFA allocation “provides the greatest value” is unsupported by the evidence and based on flawed data:
Mischaracterization of NYSERDA’s Report
NYSERDA’s Post-10 GW Report was explicitly “illustrative” and not determinative regarding allocation scenarios; "NYSERDA emphasizes that the assumptions employed to analyze the above scenarios do not represent specific recommendations for the division of the NY-Sun program or budget by region or project type. Rather, NYSERDA requests that any additional capacity... include the NY-Sun program practice of adjusting incentive rates and capacity blocks based on program uptake and other market conditions." (p. 17 of order) No party — including NYSERDA — recommended 100% S-SFA. NYSERDA was clear that these scenarios were based on assumptions and should not be relied on as fact. The Commission’s reliance on this report to justify an unprecedented funding allocation decision contradicts the record.
Failure to Account for Recent Commission Orders
NYSERDA’s Post-10 GW report failed to take the Commission’s approval of multiple discount rates for opt- in community solar into consideration in its analysis and assumptions. This significant programmatic rule change provides for improved project economics and enables a greater opportunity for increased development of MWs under ICSA. CDG Hosts are now able to give ICSA-eligible low-income households higher discount rates while providing non-LMI households lower discount rates. The appreciation of this factor would have resulted in the total MW deployed under ICSA to have been higher under NYSERDA’s base assumptions making ICSA potentially more impactful than S-SFA. NYSERDA’s omission of this policy change in its ICSA vs. S-SFA comparisons resulted in the Commission relying on a flawed analysis. Not acknowledging the impact this new policy undercuts the credibility of the MW comparisons between S- SFA and ICSA.
Flawed MW Comparisons
The Commission’s conclusion rests on a simplistic interpretation of NYSERDA’s MW projections — which are not apples-to-apples:
Because of this, ICSA dollars actually go further to deploying more MW of community solar since such dollars are only supporting 60% of the project capacity as opposed to 100% under S-SFA. Further, The comparison can’t be ICSA at a 10% discount and S-SFA at a 10% discount because S-SFA has never been at a 10% discount. S-SFA has always been offered at a higher discount rate so any comparison must factor that in. Using NYSERDA’s own table, when you compare the impact of deploying 100% of surplus funds to ICSA vs. S-SFA on the more real-world scenario, i.e 100% ICSA at 10% discount to 100% S-SFA at 20% discount, the difference in total MW deployed actually has ICSA coming out ahead. If you want to make an assumption that the S-SFA discount is actually less 20%, which would likely cause the MW deployed to increase for S-SFA, fine, but the difference would materially less than what is represented in the report.
The Commissions explicitly concluded that its determination was based on NYSERDA’s illustrative and flawed report: “This is evidenced by NYSERDA’s own analysis in the Post 10 GW Report, which shows that the scenarios allocating 100% of surplus funds towards the S-SFA program would likely incentivize more MWs of solar (all of which will benefit low-income customers) versus the comparable scenarios allocating either some or all of the budget towards the ICSA program." The fact that there are material questions of fact in NYSERDA’s analysis and report, and such report is being used as the basis for the Commission’s determination exemplifies the fact that the Commission’s order warrants reconsideration.
S-SFA DOES NOT DELIVER GREATER VALUE TO LOW-INCOME CUSTOMERS
Underpinning the Commission’s determination is that “committing the full $150 million towards S-SFA projects provides the greatest value in terms of benefiting low-income customers”. This is a conclusion reached without substance or evidence.
Limited Reach of S-SFA
S-SFA only benefits households enrolled in utility Energy Assistance Programs (EAP) — which require opt- in enrollment by low-income households. Many low-income households do not participate in EAP and would be excluded under a 100% S-SFA funding model. The irony is that the Commission calls out the friction of enrollment in the opt-in community solar/ICSA model and therefore shows support of the automatic enrollment of EAP customers in S-SFA. But since EAP customers need to opt-in to EAP, some theoretical friction will always exist, whether on the front end in enrolling into EAP or in the enrollment in opt-in community solar. But importantly, by deploying all surplus dollars to S-SFA, the Commission will not be delivering the benefits to all low-income households, only those that opted-in to EAP. ICSA and opt-in community solar provide ALL low-income households the opportunity to benefit and participate in community solar.
Nominal Benefit per Household
Under the S-SFA program, all participating CDG projects have the Value Stack credits pooled and then distributed to all EAP households in the respective utility service territory. When you spread those dollars across the hundreds of thousands of EAP households, those households would expect to save only a de minimis amount on their month bill, i.e. ~$1.50/month in savings (materially less in service territories with more EAP households and less community solar opportunities, like ConEd). In contrast, ICSA provides a direct up to 10% monthly bill discount to enrolled low-income customers — delivering 10x more financial benefit, i.e. $15/month in savings, which is meaningful financial relief for low-income families. If the Commission is genuine in its desire to deliver great value to low-income households and deploy meaningful MW of solar, ICSA and opt-in community solar must be a part of the solution.
Importance of Customer Engagement
In the Commission’s reconsideration of this matter, I ask that the Commission consider the broader public policy goals of community solar. The process of opt-in enrollment in community solar shouldn’t be considered a friction that needs to be eliminated, but rather a key process of education and engagement that serves the meaningful goal of helping low-income customers understand how they benefit from clean energy. Their conscious participation in opt-in community solar will also encourage broader sustainable behavior (e.g., participation in energy efficiency and demand response programs). These are meaningful accretive benefits from this existing program. S-SFA’s passive model lacks this important market and equity value.
Conclusion
We respectfully urge the Commission to grant NYSEIA’s petition for rehearing. The Commission’s determination to allocate 100% of funds to S-SFA was unsupported by the record, contradicted by NYSERDA’s own framing, and made without full consideration of new Commission orders or current federal policy risks. The Commission’s material reliance on NYSERDA’s Post-10 GW Report, which failed to consider material factors, was flawed and warrants rehearing. We hope the Commission grant this petition. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Jason Kaplan, Esq.
President and Chief Legal Officer, PowerMarket
New York is already a national leader in solar, having met its 6 GW distributed solar goal ahead of schedule in 2024. We’re on track for 10 GW by 2030, but only if we continue investing in solutions that work.
Recently, however, the Public Service Commission (PSC) announced major changes to the NY-Sun Program that include eliminating future funding. In light of the Public Service Commission’s recent decision, a move that jeopardizes years of clean energy progress, we petition for a rehearing to ensure New York’s solar leadership continues to thrive.
We outline the following main issues that warrant rehearing in order for these errors to be rectified:
- New Federal Policy Circumstances: Proposed federal legislation threatens to reduce or eliminate the 30% Investment Tax Credit, invalidating the surplus estimates used to justify the Commission's funding decision.
- Mischaracterization of NYSERDA's Report: The Commission treated NYSERDA's explicitly "illustrative" analysis as determinative, despite no party recommending 100% S-SFA allocation.
- Failure to Account for Recent Commission Orders: NYSERDA's analysis ignored the Commission's approval of multiple discount rates for community solar, which improves project economics.
- Flawed MW Comparisons: The Commission relied on inaccurate comparisons using wrong discount rates (S-SFA modeled at 10% vs. actual 13-15% rates).
- Limited S-SFA Reach: S-SFA only benefits households enrolled in utility Energy Assistance Programs, excluding many low-income households.
- Minimal Financial Benefit: S-SFA provides only ~$1.50/month savings compared to ICSA's $15/month benefit for participating households.
Dear New York Public Service Commission:
PowerMarket hereby submits comments in support of the Petition for Rehearing filed by the New York Solar Energy Industries Association (NYSEIA) regarding the Public Service Commission’s April 24, 2025 Order Approving NY-Sun Program Modifications (“Order”). PowerMarket is the leading community solar provider in the country, with over 1 GW of community solar under management, including over 115,000 subscribers, many of whom are low-and-moderate income households.
I urge the Commission to grant rehearing and reconsider the determination to allocate 100% of the remaining NY-Sun surplus funds solely to the Statewide Solar for All (S-SFA) program, which was neither recommended by any party nor supported by substantial evidence in the record. As discussed below, new circumstances and errors of fact justify rehearing under § 3.7(b).
We respectfully submit the comments below for your consideration.
NEW CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING A DIFFERENT DETERMINATION
First, new federal policy risks have materially changed the project finance landscape since NYSERDA’s January 2024 Post-10 GW Report — the primary evidence cited by the Commission for its funding allocation decision.
Specifically, H.R. “The One Big Beautiful Bill”, reported from the House Ways and Means Committee on May 12, 2025, proposes to reduce or eliminate the 30% Investment Tax Credit (ITC) that was central to NYSERDA’s economic modeling of the NY-Sun surplus. The Commission's Order itself acknowledges that the extension of the 30% ITC was the “most impactful element of the IRA” in producing the projected budget surplus.
Now, with the continuation of the 30% ITC in question, NYSERDA’s surplus estimates and project viability assumptions are no longer valid. Rehearing is required to ensure that surplus funds are prudently allocated under this new reality — particularly as community solar projects depend more heavily on state incentives when federal tax credit support is uncertain.
ERRORS OF FACT IN THE COMMISSION’S DETERMINATION
The Commission’s finding that 100% S-SFA allocation “provides the greatest value” is unsupported by the evidence and based on flawed data:
Mischaracterization of NYSERDA’s Report
NYSERDA’s Post-10 GW Report was explicitly “illustrative” and not determinative regarding allocation scenarios; "NYSERDA emphasizes that the assumptions employed to analyze the above scenarios do not represent specific recommendations for the division of the NY-Sun program or budget by region or project type. Rather, NYSERDA requests that any additional capacity... include the NY-Sun program practice of adjusting incentive rates and capacity blocks based on program uptake and other market conditions." (p. 17 of order) No party — including NYSERDA — recommended 100% S-SFA. NYSERDA was clear that these scenarios were based on assumptions and should not be relied on as fact. The Commission’s reliance on this report to justify an unprecedented funding allocation decision contradicts the record.
Failure to Account for Recent Commission Orders
NYSERDA’s Post-10 GW report failed to take the Commission’s approval of multiple discount rates for opt- in community solar into consideration in its analysis and assumptions. This significant programmatic rule change provides for improved project economics and enables a greater opportunity for increased development of MWs under ICSA. CDG Hosts are now able to give ICSA-eligible low-income households higher discount rates while providing non-LMI households lower discount rates. The appreciation of this factor would have resulted in the total MW deployed under ICSA to have been higher under NYSERDA’s base assumptions making ICSA potentially more impactful than S-SFA. NYSERDA’s omission of this policy change in its ICSA vs. S-SFA comparisons resulted in the Commission relying on a flawed analysis. Not acknowledging the impact this new policy undercuts the credibility of the MW comparisons between S- SFA and ICSA.
Flawed MW Comparisons
The Commission’s conclusion rests on a simplistic interpretation of NYSERDA’s MW projections — which are not apples-to-apples:
- S-SFA scenarios modeled at 10% discount do not reflect reality: NYSERDA’s approved S-SFA discount rates range from 13%–15%, not 10%. Under S-SFA, this discount rate is applied to 100% of the Value Stack credits generated from the project.
- Meanwhile, ICSA was modeled at 10% — which is partly accurate. While the ICSA portion of a project is discounted at 10%, this doesn’t consider the fact that up to 40% of the project may be discounted at 5% representing the discount rate applied to non-ICSA eligible accounts.
Because of this, ICSA dollars actually go further to deploying more MW of community solar since such dollars are only supporting 60% of the project capacity as opposed to 100% under S-SFA. Further, The comparison can’t be ICSA at a 10% discount and S-SFA at a 10% discount because S-SFA has never been at a 10% discount. S-SFA has always been offered at a higher discount rate so any comparison must factor that in. Using NYSERDA’s own table, when you compare the impact of deploying 100% of surplus funds to ICSA vs. S-SFA on the more real-world scenario, i.e 100% ICSA at 10% discount to 100% S-SFA at 20% discount, the difference in total MW deployed actually has ICSA coming out ahead. If you want to make an assumption that the S-SFA discount is actually less 20%, which would likely cause the MW deployed to increase for S-SFA, fine, but the difference would materially less than what is represented in the report.
The Commissions explicitly concluded that its determination was based on NYSERDA’s illustrative and flawed report: “This is evidenced by NYSERDA’s own analysis in the Post 10 GW Report, which shows that the scenarios allocating 100% of surplus funds towards the S-SFA program would likely incentivize more MWs of solar (all of which will benefit low-income customers) versus the comparable scenarios allocating either some or all of the budget towards the ICSA program." The fact that there are material questions of fact in NYSERDA’s analysis and report, and such report is being used as the basis for the Commission’s determination exemplifies the fact that the Commission’s order warrants reconsideration.
S-SFA DOES NOT DELIVER GREATER VALUE TO LOW-INCOME CUSTOMERS
Underpinning the Commission’s determination is that “committing the full $150 million towards S-SFA projects provides the greatest value in terms of benefiting low-income customers”. This is a conclusion reached without substance or evidence.
Limited Reach of S-SFA
S-SFA only benefits households enrolled in utility Energy Assistance Programs (EAP) — which require opt- in enrollment by low-income households. Many low-income households do not participate in EAP and would be excluded under a 100% S-SFA funding model. The irony is that the Commission calls out the friction of enrollment in the opt-in community solar/ICSA model and therefore shows support of the automatic enrollment of EAP customers in S-SFA. But since EAP customers need to opt-in to EAP, some theoretical friction will always exist, whether on the front end in enrolling into EAP or in the enrollment in opt-in community solar. But importantly, by deploying all surplus dollars to S-SFA, the Commission will not be delivering the benefits to all low-income households, only those that opted-in to EAP. ICSA and opt-in community solar provide ALL low-income households the opportunity to benefit and participate in community solar.
Nominal Benefit per Household
Under the S-SFA program, all participating CDG projects have the Value Stack credits pooled and then distributed to all EAP households in the respective utility service territory. When you spread those dollars across the hundreds of thousands of EAP households, those households would expect to save only a de minimis amount on their month bill, i.e. ~$1.50/month in savings (materially less in service territories with more EAP households and less community solar opportunities, like ConEd). In contrast, ICSA provides a direct up to 10% monthly bill discount to enrolled low-income customers — delivering 10x more financial benefit, i.e. $15/month in savings, which is meaningful financial relief for low-income families. If the Commission is genuine in its desire to deliver great value to low-income households and deploy meaningful MW of solar, ICSA and opt-in community solar must be a part of the solution.
Importance of Customer Engagement
In the Commission’s reconsideration of this matter, I ask that the Commission consider the broader public policy goals of community solar. The process of opt-in enrollment in community solar shouldn’t be considered a friction that needs to be eliminated, but rather a key process of education and engagement that serves the meaningful goal of helping low-income customers understand how they benefit from clean energy. Their conscious participation in opt-in community solar will also encourage broader sustainable behavior (e.g., participation in energy efficiency and demand response programs). These are meaningful accretive benefits from this existing program. S-SFA’s passive model lacks this important market and equity value.
Conclusion
We respectfully urge the Commission to grant NYSEIA’s petition for rehearing. The Commission’s determination to allocate 100% of funds to S-SFA was unsupported by the record, contradicted by NYSERDA’s own framing, and made without full consideration of new Commission orders or current federal policy risks. The Commission’s material reliance on NYSERDA’s Post-10 GW Report, which failed to consider material factors, was flawed and warrants rehearing. We hope the Commission grant this petition. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Jason Kaplan, Esq.
President and Chief Legal Officer, PowerMarket
Subscribe to get more insights on industry news, company updates, product solutions, and clean energy expertise.
.png)
.png)